[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Wed Oct 9 20:18:02 UTC 2013

We just received confirmation from the GNU (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) that DMS paid features are NOT GPL compatible due to usage limitations (http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/).

This issue has continually been swept under the rug and now we have irrefutable confirmation that there is a valid GPL issue with PageLines usage licenses and limitations.

This isn't personal, this is about protecting the community and most importantly, the users from unethical business practices. This is our duty as a Theme Review Team and in this case, we've failed miserably. 

These are the facts:

• The GPL applies to both the copyright holder, and users.
• DMS (Paid Version) violates the GPL according to the GNU (see official clarification from the GNU below).
• DMS (Paid Version) thus violates WordPress.org Guidelines and Policy yet DMS (Free Version) was still approved anyway despite these concerns being raised multiple times by the community.

We can all agree on the WP guidelines:

"Commercial versions of free Themes (i.e. “freemium” or “up-sell” Themes) are required to be released under GPL-compatible licenses"

Source: http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-license-theme-name-c…

It has always been WordPress.org Policy that themes or plugins or their pro versions that are not 100% GPL compatible are not allowed on WordPress.org.

However, we have not been able to all agree on the GPL, so here it is, irrefutably, from the GNU themselves so there's no longer any confusion:

Question:

"1. There are 3 licensing options for how many sites you're allowed to use the software on, 1, 6 or unlimited. It's always been my understanding that you cannot restrict usage at all. That once the code is in the user's hands they're free to use it on as many websites as they need, both for personal and commercial sites."

GNU Response:

"That is correct, the user is free to install, copy, and share as much as they like. Sometimes, however, companies offering service/support will word their plans in such a way that it appears that you are limited, when in fact, it is only that their service/support is limited to a certain number of installs. For example, they could offer hosted GPLed software and the limit is actually on the number of hosted instances."

Question:

"2. There is no option to outright buy the software. You're forced into monthly fees and if you stop payment at any time (meaning that you're suppose to pay forever) the "pro" features of the software are crippled. It's my understanding that a developer cannot put such restrictions in place or force a user to pay for the same software more than once."

GNU Response:

"This is also correct, there cannot be any ongoing restriction such as this. Again, however, sometimes companies can be misleading about what is restricted. There can also be instances where there is GPLed software involved, but also proprietary software which they can restrict. Determining whether a violation is occurring requires looking at the actual facts involved in the case.

With all that said, the GPL is a copyright license, and it is the copyright holder who is empowered to enforce the terms of the license. Sometimes companies will nominally release GPL software, but fail to live up to its terms. As long as they are the sole copyright holder, there is no one with the power to force them to change their wrongful ways. There are other ways to gain compliance, however. Even if they can't be forced by law to follow the terms, people can still send in requests, publicly call them out for their bad practices, or even campaign against them for being bad community members."

Conclusion: 

PageLines “service” is NOT a GPL compatible Software As A Service business model since PageLines does not host the customers websites. Their “service” is not just a support either since it uses software and an API to limit usage and features to sell variably priced non-GPL compatible usage licenses.

It was argued by some admins that the GPL only applies to users, and not the copyright holder but that is simply not true according to the GNU. While there is no "GPL police" we do have the choice as a community to call this out for what it is, which is a clever marketing scheme designed to supersede the rights of users, the GPL, and WPORG policy.

Are we really going to continue to reward and promote these kind of deceptive business practices on WordPress.org?

This issue requires actual action be taken immediately as this is no longer a discussion open to interpretation.

Thank you.

--Trent Lapinski
=============
CEO of CyberChimps Inc
trent at cyberchimps.com
Twitter @trentlapinski
http://CyberChimps.com

On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> Thanks Bryan, we appreciate your efforts!
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't an empty discussion, no discussion is ever empty, knowledge is power. "Moving on" from a discussion that has come to no reasonable understanding whatsoever is what is less than ideal.
> 
> I've actually bumped this issue up to a WP foundation lawyer (who I actually spoke with) and Matt to hopefully get some sort of officially ruling on this otherwise stalemate issue. I'll let you guys know if I hear back.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20131009/5f7180ad/attachment-0001.html>